Offseason All22 Film Study

So I'll be cutting up Gabbert's 3rd down dropbacks.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/alex/2016/alex-season-review
This article list final ALEX stat for 2016, which measures the average depth at which the QB throws on 3rd down, in relation to the first down marker. A positive ALEX stat means the QB usually throws beyond the first down marker on 3rd down. A negative ALEX stat means the QB usually throws short of the first down marker on 3rd down.
Gabbert finished the season with an ALEX stat of -2.7, which means he was throwing 2.7 yards short of the first down marker, on average. This was 36th ranked in the league. Ben Roth was 1st with a +6.8, meaning he threw 6.8 yards beyond the first down marker on 3rd downs.

The aim is to gain a better understanding of why Gabbert threw short of the first down marker so many times. Was it due to play calling/play design, immediate pressure that forced a checkdown, reluctancy to attack downfield, etc. Most likely it was a combination of all these factors, but which was the main factor?

As a sample, here's the first 3rd down that Gabbert faced. I won't post any more until I finish a game.

ATL #1
From this view, it looks like Gabbert checked down and "gave up" on the play.


Spacing concept vs Cover 1 blitz.
Spacing is used to bust zone coverage, specifically Cover3 or Tampa 2. It uses the three routes on the strongside (yellow, red, orange) to create a horizontal stretch to the underneath zone defenders - creating a 3v2 situation that favors the offense. The progression is inside-out (Patton-Torrey-Vance). You can see the depth of the two Curls routes look to go beyond the first down marker.


ATL comes with man coverage and the blitz is coming. Gabbert can either try to read leverage of the two curl routes in the middle of the field and try to fit in a throw, or go to the backside Curl where he has a 1v1 situation (Simpson). ATL has SEA's former DC as HC so they are primarily a Cover3 team, but here ATL dials up man coverage. This offensive playcall is not optimal to attack Cover1.


Gabbert throws the to the flat for +6. Punt.

Verdict: Bad playcall versus coverage

This is how Spacing is supposed to work - vs Cover3.

Originally posted by thl408:
So I'll be cutting up Gabbert's 3rd down dropbacks.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/alex/2016/alex-season-review
This article list final ALEX stat for 2016, which measures the average depth at which the QB throws on 3rd down, in relation to the first down marker. A positive ALEX stat means the QB usually throws beyond the first down marker on 3rd down. A negative ALEX stat means the QB usually throws short of the first down marker on 3rd down.
Gabbert finished the season with an ALEX stat of -2.7, which means he was throwing 2.7 yards short of the first down marker, on average. This was 36th ranked in the league. Ben Roth was 1st with a +6.8, meaning he threw 6.8 yards beyond the first down marker on 3rd downs.

The aim is to gain a better understanding of why Gabbert threw short of the first down marker so many times. Was it due to play calling/play design, immediate pressure that forced a checkdown, reluctancy to attack downfield, etc. Most likely it was a combination of all these factors, but which was the main factor?

Sometimes, it's field position. OC are notoriously conservative on 3rd down deep inside their own 20. That conservatism my trickle down to their qb. I'll be looking forward to see the cut ups.

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by thl408:
So I'll be cutting up Gabbert's 3rd down dropbacks.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/alex/2016/alex-season-review
This article list final ALEX stat for 2016, which measures the average depth at which the QB throws on 3rd down, in relation to the first down marker. A positive ALEX stat means the QB usually throws beyond the first down marker on 3rd down. A negative ALEX stat means the QB usually throws short of the first down marker on 3rd down.
Gabbert finished the season with an ALEX stat of -2.7, which means he was throwing 2.7 yards short of the first down marker, on average. This was 36th ranked in the league. Ben Roth was 1st with a +6.8, meaning he threw 6.8 yards beyond the first down marker on 3rd downs.

The aim is to gain a better understanding of why Gabbert threw short of the first down marker so many times. Was it due to play calling/play design, immediate pressure that forced a checkdown, reluctancy to attack downfield, etc. Most likely it was a combination of all these factors, but which was the main factor?

Sometimes, it's field position. OC are notoriously conservative on 3rd down deep inside their own 20. That conservatism my trickle down to their qb. I'll be looking forward to see the cut ups.

Good point. Field position definitely plays a factor. What you said above, and also if an offense wants to secure the FG, they may play it less aggressive to make sure they end up with at least 3 points. If Ben Roth played in Geep/Tomsula's offense, they might ask him not to throw deep so often. If Gabbert had Antonio Brown, maybe he attacks downfield more. The larger the sample size, the more that stat has meaning, but there's definitely context missing.

This is his initial look down field at #82 and #11. They weren't open. It could be debatable that if he had stayed with #11, he would eventually be open for the 1st down. But I think that was because the backer (between 82 and 11) moved in the direction of McD, after he saw the pass was going to that side.

That's basically a 10yard drop from Gabbert. Had he been indecisive, waited too long, he would have gotten sacked at the 10. That would have been the worse deal.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by thl408:

So I'll be cutting up Gabbert's 3rd down dropbacks.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/alex/2016/alex-season-review
This article list final ALEX stat for 2016, which measures the average depth at which the QB throws on 3rd down, in relation to the first down marker. A positive ALEX stat means the QB usually throws beyond the first down marker on 3rd down. A negative ALEX stat means the QB usually throws short of the first down marker on 3rd down.
Gabbert finished the season with an ALEX stat of -2.7, which means he was throwing 2.7 yards short of the first down marker, on average. This was 36th ranked in the league. Ben Roth was 1st with a +6.8, meaning he threw 6.8 yards beyond the first down marker on 3rd downs.

The aim is to gain a better understanding of why Gabbert threw short of the first down marker so many times. Was it due to play calling/play design, immediate pressure that forced a checkdown, reluctancy to attack downfield, etc. Most likely it was a combination of all these factors, but which was the main factor?

Sometimes, it's field position. OC are notoriously conservative on 3rd down deep inside their own 20. That conservatism my trickle down to their qb. I'll be looking forward to see the cut ups.

Good point. Field position definitely plays a factor. What you said above, and also if an offense wants to secure the FG, they may play it less aggressive to make sure they end up with at least 3 points. If Ben Roth played in Geep/Tomsula's offense, they might ask him not to throw deep so often. If Gabbert had Antonio Brown, maybe he attacks downfield more. The larger the sample size, the more that stat has meaning, but there's definitely context missing.

Man coverage, single high safety. why wouldn't he either go to Simpson or check out of the play call with them showing blitz?

Originally posted by qnnhan7:


This is his initial look down field at #82 and #11. They weren't open. It could be debatable that if he had stayed with #11, he would eventually be open for the 1st down. But I think that was because the backer (between 82 and 11) moved in the direction of McD, after he saw the pass was going to that side.

That's basically a 10yard drop from Gabbert. Had he been indecisive, waited too long, he would have gotten sacked at the 10. That would have been the worse deal.

Steve Young would have put the ball on a rope to the 25 yard line on the come back to #14, look at all that green!. One side step and he's gone to the house. Oh this isn't 1996, sorry.

lol Simpson vs Desmond Trufant

I'll take that 1on1 every time.

I learn more from this thread than any other on the zone. Thanks for all the work and study guys.

Playcalling didnt help, Gabbert chose a safe throw in a risky field position on the first campaign of his first game as a starter. Cant blame him on this one

Originally posted by asvidzinski:
Playcalling didnt help, Gabbert chose a safe throw in a risky field position on the first campaign of his first game as a starter. Cant blame him on this one

I would put this play result on playcalling as well. Credit to ATL for mixing it up and calling man coverage when the 49ers expected zone.

Originally posted by sdaddy101269:
Man coverage, single high safety. why wouldn't he either go to Simpson or check out of the play call with them showing blitz?

I guess the questions to ask are, "at what point did Gabbert realize it's man coverage?", and, "does Gabbert have the freedom to audible out of the play?". We don't know those answers. When the offense first got lined up, ATL's LBs were at normal depth, not showing pressure. That might have led to Gabbert not knowing he was about to face blitz/man coverage, although the CBs were in press alignment the entire time.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by asvidzinski:

Playcalling didnt help, Gabbert chose a safe throw in a risky field position on the first campaign of his first game as a starter. Cant blame him on this one

I would put this play result on playcalling as well. Credit to ATL for mixing it up and calling man coverage when the 49ers expected zone.

Originally posted by sdaddy101269:

Man coverage, single high safety. why wouldn't he either go to Simpson or check out of the play call with them showing blitz?

I guess the questions to ask are, "at what point did Gabbert realize it's man coverage?", and, "does Gabbert have the freedom to audible out of the play?". We don't know those answers. When the offense first got lined up, ATL's LBs were at normal depth, not showing pressure. That might have led to Gabbert not knowing he was about to face blitz/man coverage, although the CBs were in press alignment the entire time.

I love the spacing concept but I don't like how we ran this particular play. I don't if it was drawn like this or the wideouts just ran it sloppy, but IMO Torrey and Pattons are way too close by the end of their routes. IMO, there needed to be much more horizontal spacing between the two. It kinda defeats the purpose of spacing if 2 of the WR end up so close to each other.

Originally posted by Niners816:

I love the spacing concept but I don't like how we ran this particular play. I don't if it was drawn like this or the wideouts just ran it sloppy, but IMO Torrey and Pattons are way too close by the end of their routes. IMO, there needed to be much more horizontal spacing between the two. It kinda defeats the purpose of spacing if 2 of the WR end up so close to each other.

Thought the same. Also, props to their LB for staying true to McDonald who stays into block and then releases out in the flat. Had the LB stayed in coverage, Vance had a lot of green there.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Niners816:

I love the spacing concept but I don't like how we ran this particular play. I don't if it was drawn like this or the wideouts just ran it sloppy, but IMO Torrey and Pattons are way too close by the end of their routes. IMO, there needed to be much more horizontal spacing between the two. It kinda defeats the purpose of spacing if 2 of the WR end up so close to each other.

Thought the same. Also, props to their LB for staying true to McDonald who stays into block and then releases out in the flat. Had the LB stayed in coverage, Vance had a lot of green there.

Would have much rather had Patton's route act more like a center hook. If he could have ran it across the hashes and got over the centerline it would have given the play more horizontal stretch to it and could have perhaps opened up the outside hook. I'm thinking like something like the Y's route on this play:



If you run it like the above diagram, not only do you get more horizontal stretch between the WR's but coupled with the flat route you get the desired zone busting triangle by the ending points of each route.

OK, but probaly still woudnt work out, since the LB didnt bite